Skip to main content

Table 3 Post-treatment TDC values in the long-term

From: Towards an optimal therapy strategy for myogenous TMD, physiotherapy compared with occlusal splint therapy in an RCT with therapy-and-patient-specific treatment durations

  Physiotherapy Splint therapy P-value and significance of difference
All patients:
 TDC at LM [mean (SD), n] −0.512 (0.339), 37 −0.575 (0.361), 35 0.446 NS
 Number of items contributing to TDC at LM [mean (SD), n] 14.2 (6.6), 37 15.7 (8.3), 35 0.407 NS
Patients with STx:
 TDC at LM [mean (SD), n] −0.807 (0.127), 19 −0.820 (0.161), 21 0.808 NS
 Number of items contributing to TDC at LM [mean (SD), n] 12.2 (5.9), 19 15.6 (9.2), 21 0.152 NS§
Patients with UTx:
 TDC at LM [mean (SD), n] −0.200 (0.161), 18 −0.208 (0.244), 14 0.906 NS
 Number of items contributing to TDC at LM [mean (SD), n] 16.3 (6.8), 18 15.7 (7.0), 14 0.832 NS§
  1. TDC at LM, last measurement of treatment outcome in the long-term. STx and UTx, successful and unsuccessful treatment respectively. Student’s t-test for unpaired observations. NS, non-significance. one-way ANOVA for the factor TDC between the various patient groups with different therapies and treatment outcomes. The factor TDC was significant (p < 0.0001), indicating TDC-values which were smaller for patients with STx (more negative TDC-values indicating more improvement) than for patients with UTx. The Bonferroni’s multiple comparison tests were non-significant between both therapies, for STx and UTx respectively (p-values indicated). §one-way ANOVA for the factor number of items contributing to TDC at LM which was non-significant (p = 0.328)